Parsley, et al v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al

Filing 61

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court agrees with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 50 as my own opinion. Ditech's Motion for Summary Judgment 20 is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 28 is DENIED Signed on 7/5/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JAMES H. PARSLEY and MARIE E. PARSLEY, No. 3:16-cv-00175-SB Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [50], recommending that Defendant Ditech’s Motion for Summary Judgment [20] should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] should be DENIED. No objections to the F&R were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 1 – OPINION AND ORDER court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [50] as my own opinion. Ditech’s Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of July, 2017. /s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?